The Result of European Unification Will be War

The Result of European Unification Will be War

A comment from “Archonix” (an Englishman) at Gates of Vienna, 30 April 2007

The EUSSR[T]he EU economies are not substantially better than they were in the 90s. Many are at the same level, others are worse. Ask any Italian what he thinks of the economy at the moment and if you’re lucky he’ll just shout at you for a few hours. The only reason your dollars don’t seem to go far any more is because the dollar has fallen significantly, not because the euro has risen. The euro is placing a massive inflationary burden on the EU economies, which no longer have the mechanism of altering interest rates in order to control inflation.

Further, there is no mechanism for national debt transfer, as exists in the US, which places further inflationary pressure on individual member states. This pressure is compounded by inflation in members states that are net recipients of EU funding (Spain and Ireland as examples) who are able to cut taxes to miniscule amounts because they’re getting funded by the other EU member states. All of this is combining to produce an inflationary economy with no control mechanism. Unemployment has risen constantly within the euro zone since the euro was introduced, and productivity has fallen just as constantly. National debts are going up, taxes are rising, GDP is falling.

continue reading

Media Is Murder

Media Is Murder

And so is the Democrat Party.

soldier helmet finger

When I first got back from Iraq and I reported that the mainstream media were literally killing our troops, the mainstream media and leftist bloggers shrieked hysterically that such a claim was nothing short of laughable. When I said that the insurgents’ morale was largely shaped by the reportage and editorial bent of the U.S. media, I was also dismissed for making such “ridiculous” statements. Back home these issues are theoreticals. When you are in Iraq, and are still being blown up because the enemy has been led to believe that the Democrats may yet hand him victory, these issues are a matter of life and death. And they make a man very, very angry indeed.

From Victor Davis Hanson on April 26, 2007:

“Sometimes no comment is needed. So it was of Vietnam when victorious Gen. Giap later remarked that that the American Left was “essential to our strategy.” He elaborated to the Wall Street Journal: “Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.”

And Giap added that anti-war activists, “Gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war.”

Posted by Pat Dollard 14 Comments

China’s Empire of Lies

China’s Empire of Lies

EDITOR’S NOTE: City Journal has published a brilliant essay about rising China. An excerpt appears below.

The Empire of Lies
By Guy Sorman

The twenty-first century will not belong to China.

The Western press is full of stories these days on China’s arrival as a superpower, some even heralding, or warning, that the future may belong to her. Western political and business delegations stream into Beijing, confident of China’s economy, which continues to grow rapidly. Investment pours in. Crowning China’s new status, Beijing will host the 2008 Summer Olympics.

But China’s success is, at least in part, a mirage. True, 200 million of her subjects, fortunate to be working for an expanding global market, increasingly enjoy a middle-class standard of living. The remaining 1 billion, however, remain among the poorest and most exploited people in the world, lacking even minimal rights and public services. Popular discontent simmers, especially in the countryside, where it often flares into violent confrontation with Communist Party authorities. China’s economic “miracle” is rotting from within.

The Party’s primary concern is not improving the lives of the downtrodden; it seeks power more than it seeks social development. It expends extraordinary energy in suppressing Chinese freedoms—the media operate under suffocating censorship, and political opposition can result in expulsion or prison—even as it tries to seduce the West, which has conferred greater legitimacy on it than do the Chinese themselves.

Click here to continue reading.

NBC cameraman flies Mexican flag at march

NBC cameraman flies Mexican flag at march
Videographer for Houston affiliate sparks angry response from locals

Posted: May 1, 2007
5:00 p.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2007

A cameraman for the NBC affiliate in Houston was captured on home video sporting a Mexican flag on his camera while covering a rally in the Texas city that supported illegal immigrants, drawing angry shouts from counter-protesters.In the first of two clips posted on, a counter-protester with a bull horn can be heard condemning the cameraman’s flag.

“Why does Channel 2 News have a Mexican flag on their camera?” the man asked.

Videographer from NBC affiliate KPRC-TV in Houston displays Mexican flag while covering an immigration march Saturday in Houston

Houston’s NBC station is KPRC.

KPRC News Director Skip Valet told WND the cameraman’s flying of the Mexican flag broke station rules.

“It violates our policy, because we’re always objective observers of these situations,” Valet told WND. “We don’t take sides in news stories; we cover them. That policy was clearly violated.”

The cameraman has been disciplined, Valet said, but he could not disclose details, because it’s a personnel matter.

Valet said the employee has been with the station for about five years. He went to cover the event by himself, the news director said, with the exception of an intern.

The second YouTube clip shows a woman, after considerable protest of the cameraman, mounting an American flag alongside the Mexican banner on the camera. The cameraman helps the woman secure the U.S. flag in place.

A female voice from among the counter-demonstrators then is heard shouting angrily into a bullhorn.

“We are going to let Americans across the country know what you have done today. You are a disgrace, you need to be shut down. … ”

The confrontation took place Saturday as hundreds of people marched to Houston’s Mason Park for a rally in support of illegal immigrants. The Houston Chronicle reported the marchers blew whistles, banged on drums and chanted through loudspeakers as they carried U.S. and Mexican flags. Banners included one that said: “Amor sin la frontera: Love has no borders.”

The paper said the counter-demonstrators were representatives of the group U.S. Border Watch, who stood across the street and waved American flags, chanting back at the marchers.

Curtis Collier, president of U.S. Border Watch, told the Chronicle his group is working every day to “save the sovereignty of this nation.”

He believes more Americans are aware now of the issue of illegal immigration.

“I do think the American people are now aware of the problems – illegal immigration is putting a strain our on schools, our social services system and our justice system,” Collier said.







Monday April 30,2007


THE wail of the mosque is signalling the end of traditional British justice.  

For centuries, the principle of equality before the law for all citizens has been at the heart of our society.

It has been one of the cornerstones of our liberty, stretching back to the time of Magna Carta. Now, thanks to the pernicious doctrine of multi-­culturalism, it is under attack as never before.

In a political climate of craven appeasement towards Muslim extremism, the Islamification of our country is steadily accelerating. Across large swathes of urban Britain, Muslim practices, customs, schooling and dress-codes now prevail. But perhaps the most dramatic indicator of this process comes from the West Yorkshire town of Dewsbury, where Muslim elders have decided to set up their own Islamic court to impose Sharia law in civil disputes within their communities.

The misguided creed of anti-racist tolerance could herald a dark new era of judicial intolerance


Crucial issues such as divorce and child custody are settled by a panel of four senior Muslim clerics and scholars. The age-old British attachment to trial by jury or by magistrates is at risk from an utterly alien Islamic code imported from regions far less civilised and democratic than our own. 

Effectively, the integ­rity of British law has been eclipsed in parts of Dewsbury by quasi-judicial religious zealotry. In this once proud Yorkshire mill town, there are now two legal systems in operation for civil matters, one for Muslims and one for the rest of the population. This is a recipe for more division in a place already notorious for its links to fanatical Islam. Dewsbury was, after all, the home town of Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the July 7 suicide bombers.

The establishment of Sharia law will only increase the trend towards Muslim separatism. The Government is partly to blame as its enthusiastic promotion of the dogma of cultural diversity has encouraged ethnic minority groups to cling to their own traditions rather than embrace Britain’s. But the self-styled community leaders of Dewsbury are also displaying a repellent arrogance towards British law, which they seem to believe is inferior to their own code.

Well, if they really think Sharia law is better than our own, why don’t they go and live in some brutal theocracy such as Saudi Arabia rather than trying to destroy the judicial fabric of Britain? It is sickening that they want to have it both ways: enjoying the fruits of our prosperous society while demanding that their superstitious, barbaric, mis­ogynistic ideology be given official legal status.

Indeed, it is this misogyny that is perhaps the most sinister aspect of the arrival of Sharia law in Britain. For the Islamic code enshrines the institutional oppression of women, treating them as second-class citizens. A wife mistreated or beaten by her spouse is hardly likely to receive much justice from the bearded patriarchs of an Islamic court, for whom anti-female discrimination is part of their theology. 

It is telling that when there was a proposal to introduce Sharia law for Muslims in Ontario, Canada, the most vociferous opposition came from female Muslim immigrants who had fled from states such as Iran. “I came here to escape Sharia law,” said one Iranian exile. “Under it, a woman is worth half a man. She has no rights.”

Thankfully, even in politically correct Canada, the proposition was quashed. But Britain under Blair is less robust. For the Sharia court in Dewsbury will not be an isolated case. With our Government too enfeebled to challenge it, the idea will spread. Other Muslim neighbourhoods will start to impose Islamic rules. And the scope of the Sharia judges will be expanded far beyond mere matrimonial and child custody disputes. This could be just the first step towards the creation of localised Taliban regimes in Muslim areas of British cities, enforcing their own distorted moral codes, clamping down on alcohol, imposing new forms of censorship, promoting anti-western attitudes and peddling yet more grievances against the British state.

Lurking in the background is the threat of terrorism if demands for special treatment are not met. MJ Akbar, a Muslim scholar, recently made this menacing comment on any attempt to resist Sharia law: “A Muslim does not have to live in a Muslim state but he must have the right to live by his divine law. If that is denied then he is in Dar al Harb or the House of War and jihad becomes obligatory upon him.”

Muslims continually bleat about so-called “Islamophobia” but the isolation they experience from mainstream society is of their own making. British society has bent over backwards to accommodate Islam. We now have state-funded Muslim schools and Muslim-friendly mortgages. Mosques have been erected across Britain while, unlike in France, the hijab headscarf is allowed in schools.

Only last week, the Govern­ment announced that it is planning to introduce Islamic-compliant security bonds in the City. But none of this is ever good enough. The more we fall to our knees, the more emboldened radical Muslims become. That is because we have made the grievous error of thinking that Islam is another religion, like Christianity or Buddhism, based on the individual relationship between the believer and God. In reality Islam, certainly in its modern manifestation, is as much an aggressive political ideology as a faith. The religious and the political realms are merged under Islam, which prescribes a mode of governance for society.

That is why Muslim states are so authoritarian. And it is also why the advent of Sharia law in Britain is so terrifying. It will bring about the end of liberal democracy unless it is stopped. 

The misguided creed of anti-racist tolerance could herald a dark new era of judicial intolerance.




May 2, 2007 — President Bush last night resolutely vetoed an Iraq-war-funding bill that would have tied the hands of his military commanders and forced a U.S. capitulation to bloody-handed terrorists in a matter of months.”This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops,” Bush said. “[That] makes no sense.”Indeed it doesn’t.

Bush noted that congressional Democrats had made their point – they’re against the war – and that now it is time to move forward and fund U.S. troops.

He’s right. But it hardly undoes the damage Democrats already have done.

Senate Majority Leader Harry “White Flag” Reid and House Speaker Nancy “Miss Syria” Pelosi knew very well that they didn’t have enough votes to override Bush’s long-promised veto of their bill.

But they passed it and sent it to Bush – solely to score political points.

It was meant as a symbolic gesture – as indeed it was.

A symbol . . . of weakness.

Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and others will surely interpret a bill calling for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq before it has been stabilized as a sign that this nation has gone all wobbly.

In Iraq and the Middle East, in particular, the mullahs and Islamists can fairly conclude it’s only a matter of time before Democrats force defeat upon America.

And that the next stage of their war against the West can soon begin.

It also sends a message, as Bush noted, to America’s allies: When the going gets tough, America – with the Democrats leading the way – starts running. So why fight by America’s side?

And one more thing: Congress’ passage of the bill – Bush’s veto notwithstanding – does enormous harm to the troops in theater themselves.

Not only because it delays urgently needed funding for equipment and munitions to support them.

But also because it gives such encouragement to the very people trying to kill them.

Now Congress will go back and finally get serious about funding the troops.

But much damage has been done.

The Democrats – Reid and Pelosi, in particular – have dealt the troops, and the nation, an enormous setback.

They’ve made victory in Iraq harder to achieve. All for political motives.

Democrats ought to be ashamed.

And Americans should take appropriate note.

The Kurds build a healthy society; why can’t the Palestinians?

The Kurds build a healthy society; why can’t the


Ed Lasky
Marty Peretz, writing in The Spine blog at The New Republic, makes an illuminating contrast of the Kurds with the Palestinians (and Israelis, too).

… the Kurds followed the example of what the Zionists did from the twenties on. For several decades, even under the raging reign of Saddam Hussein, they built an educational system and a health system, they had a working Kurdish government that no one recognized, they paid attention to all of the requirements for civil society. [snip]
Everyone is passionate for a Palestinian state. There have been at least two declarations of independence proclaiming it. 120-odd countries have already recognized the state of Palestine. The Palestinians have embassies all over the world, and the world’s countries have representation in it. Even the government of Israel wants there to be a Palestine, and three of the previous governments have also expressed support and worked for a Palestinian state. In fact, I suppose I want a Palestinian state, too. But the Palestinians don’t have a state, and it’s not because Israel failed to give them one or negotiate one with them.
The contrast is startling: no one wants a Kurdish state and yet there is one….  I’ll wager a bet. The Kurds will be represented as a state in international councils long before the people of Palestine stop killing each other.